Welcome to the Anything and Everything Jersey and Winchester abuse case blog.

Please scroll past these initial links to get to the main blog or the post you have come to read.

This is a statement from last summer:

Here is a link to the four great letters:

Here is a collection of Open Letters:

Here is my psychological report from last year:

This is my Daily Blog running from October 2011 until now:

These are other people's blogs on my case:



The blog itself is quite broken up, not written in an ordered fashion, a bit mixed up, like I am, talking about Jersey, the Diocese and my life.

Thank you for reading my blog, please persevere if it is at a bitty phase, go back and find what you are looking for in older posts, use the search button, or look at the favourite posts and links in the side bars.

The blog is heavy, I know, but the case is complex and the reality is that it has always been beyond me to get past the trauma and tell my story, so I am doing my best, in bits, to do so, as well as sharing related articles and links.


  • I was abused in the Church of England as a vulnerable adult aged 19.
  • I was abused by the husband of a vicar who was also my counsellor, this vicar took me home as a replacement for her stepdaughter who her husband, the girl's father, had abused and abandoned.
  • I was further abused by another church officer.
  • The church tried to close my complaints down, refused to deal with them and left both abusers and those who stood up for them in church positions.
  • The church got me a criminal record for speaking up, they claimed I was harassing them.
  • I had never been in police trouble before, but as a result, I lost my home and job, and was left on the streets, injured by the police and severely traumatized.

  • Last year, years too late and the other side of me being destroyed, and while I was still homeless and destitute, the church launched on me in the National press, claiming to apologize.
  • They also launched in the press, a 'report' into what had happened. This report was hideously inaccurate although it did show how members of church had abused process in not dealing with my complaint.
  • The report, although not naming me, made it quite easy for me to be identified, I was one of very few autistic 33 year old women in the UK on the streets, and enough people who I met and was looked after by, knew who the report was about, and I lost friends and was shunned as a result.
  • I also had strangers condemning and maligning me, it was heartbreaking.
  • Then a church officer associated with my abuser, also in government, released my name and breached the data protection act.

  • As a result of the Press reports and the report released, an all-out war broke out between the Diocese and Deanery involved, with me caught in the middle, I was slandered, I was smeared, I was condemned.
  • The Church offered no help and I became ill as each new inaccurate report and cover up came out, each new damnation of me.
  • New investigations were comissioned, and one was blatantly conflicted, to be carried out by a member of the group who supported the wrongdoers.
  • I have been excluded from all reports, which, to save the church, are whitewashes which cover up the original admissions of wrongdoing.
  • The church have treated me coldly, threatened me, despite them having me illegally traced by police, and have not helped me, instead they made illegal referrals of me to what they called help, without my consent and without checking it would help or what I wanted.
  • I have pleaded with them to stop the harm to me, but to no avail, and I am living in fear, severely traumatized and knowing I cannot withstand the damning press reports and whitewashes forever.

Friday, 22 May 2015

I'm just saving these links here...

For my own reference, but feel free to read them.

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Bob Hill puts his teeth back in and speaks up

He's still missing out a few facts but never mind.

Reblogging Bob's blog, seeing as he is shooting his mouth off about my case!

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Jersey's Dean--All Quiet on the Winchester Front.

Jersey has just celebrated the 70th anniversary of its Liberation from 5 years of Nazi Occupation. In many of the sermons espoused by our Island’s clergy at Services held celebrate the anniversary was the need for reconciliation. 

Unfortunately for some clergy it is easier to talk about the matter than practice it. The same can be said for honesty where not for the first time the Church of England has provided ample evidence of its “Do as I say and not as I do” approach to life.

As an example of its double standards I cite the Jersey Deans infamous handling of a complaint made by a vulnerable person whereby the promised outcome is still awaited.

Although the complaint was made 7 years ago the matter only came to light 2 years ago following a review by Jan Korris. This resulted in the Dean being suspended by Bishop Dakin who soon fell foul of the Dean’s supporters who claimed that because of the ancient practice of the Dean, on appointment, receiving Letters Patent from the Crown, the Bishop was acting outside his remit.

Although the matter is now two years old those appointed to address the matter have either acted as though it never occurred or have arrogantly abdicated their responsibility.

The Dean was hastily reinstated following his "apology" for “any” mistakes he “may” have made and promised to co-operate with any review that might ensue.

Two reviews were undertaken and their outcomes should have been made known at least 12 months ago. 

Two weeks ago in an attempt to seek an update I emailed Tim Dakin, the Bishop of Winchester with a request that the four issues below be addressed. Sadly, but not surprisingly I have not received a reply

This is a copy of the email dated May 4th.

Dear Bishop Tim, 
It is now 2 years since you suspended and reinstated the Dean. It is also 2 years since you appointed Bishop Gladwin and Dame Heather Steel to review the Constitutional situation and the Dean’s handling of a complaint. To date no reports have been published.

It has been reported that a further review is to be undertaken in respect of the Constitutional issues. If that is the case please could you inform me what steps you are taking to publish Bishop Gladwin’s findings or are they to be incorporated into the new review?

Regarding Dame Heather's Report, you must be aware that there are a number of valid reasons why Dame Heather’s Report can never be published. Apart from the legal issues and Dame Heather’s flawed investigation, there is also the issue of the undertakings referred to in your letter to the former Bailiff last May and those submitted to Winchester Court last June.

My justification for claiming that Dame Heather’s investigation was flawed is because of her failure to interview the main witness, namely the complainant or review her arrest and deportation as recommended by Ms Korris in her Report. Concerns about Dame Heather’s conflict and unsuitability can be confirmed in the transcript of her 3 hour meeting with me in October 2013.

You will recall that before my meeting with Dame Heather it had been agreed that I would receive a copy of the transcript. After the meeting I was again promised a copy but despite numerous requests to you and Dame Heather the transcript has not been provided.

The Dean’s handling of the complaint has caused great distress to a number of people including the complainant, your self, the Dean and a large number of ordinary church goers who have seen their money wasted on flawed reviews and the ending of our 500 year association with Winchester.

The matter has dragged on and I believe it is incumbent on you as the instigator of the suspension, the Visitation, broken promises, distress, and the break from Winchester to come clean with the people you represent and make it known what you propose to do with the finding of the Gladwin Review and the Steel Report.

I know that sometimes it is difficult to accept that we are capable of making mistakes but the appointment of Dame Heather was a mistake as evidenced by the way she conducted her investigation and if her report was published it would cause even further distress. Therefore it should be shredded.

In summary I would be grateful if you would;

1 Update me on what you propose to do with the Gladwin findings. 
2 Confirm that you will not be publishing the Steel Report. 
3 Provide me with the copy of transcript of my meeting with Dame Heather. 
4 Advise me how much the Visitation has cost to date.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and assure me that my requests above will be addressed within the next two weeks. 

It is disappointing that the Bishop has ignored a simple request.  

It is not surprising that Bishop Gladwin has found the constitutional issues to be complex and that is probably why another review is to be undertaken, so why the silence?

The appointment of Dame Heather Steel was a mistake and for reasons above her Report should be shredded. I should also be given the promised transcript. So why continue to withhold it?

It has been reported that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, however no reasons have been given nor whether the Dean has been exonerated.  

It could be said that as the Bishop had no powers to suspend the Dean then he has no power to discipline him. Leaving the matter open to speculation is unsatisfactory.

What is also unsatisfactory is that Bishop Dakin has claimed there are serious Safeguarding concerns in Jersey. Given my recent involvement with another safeguarding matter, I have no problem in endorsing Bishop Tim’s concerns. However what are those concerns and who is addressing them?

Given the time taken and of the personal involved the cost of conducting the reviews/investigations are likely to be in excess of the original estimate. The costs are not being met from the Bishop's pocket so why are they being withheld?

When I met a senior member of the clergy two years ago he described the Jersey situation as a mess. Two years on it can be said that not only does confusion reign supreme but the mess is now a much bigger and more expensive.

The issue will not go away and the longer there is a denial of the truth the more harm will be inflicted on the Church of England. It does little for its integrity when its Ministers espouse the virtues of reconciliation yet the Dean of Jersey and Bishop of Winchester cannot bury their differences. It also does little to inspire confidence when it cannot honour promised made.

Sadly I doubt whether anyone at Canterbury really cares, because if they did they would not permit the matter to fester. 

Sunday, 17 May 2015

Gavin Ashenden 2

A lot of people are landing on my blog looking for Ashenden, again.

Well, I gather he has had a row with the JEP, but I am still not wasting time on him.

Other bloggers have done posts, and one blogger has actually posted the article that the JEP have refused.
I cannot locate that article but I can link you to the other blog posts about Ashenden's whatever.

Please feel redirected, I am too busy for Revd. Ashenden at the moment.
Here you are:

Thursday, 7 May 2015

The Church and the election

Once upon a time in Jersey, a Vicar tried to openly influence the local election because two candidates were part of the church. He got promoted by the church and treated royally.
The elections in Jersey are and always have been, influenced by the church.
As are the elections in the UK.

But what puzzles me is, why, not so long ago, were the Church of England publicly making a fuss and making people think they were supporting Labour and trying to out the Conservatives?
And then all of a sudden the Church Times were gushing about how 'The CofE and the Conservatives are natural partners?

Really odd.
If the CofE lose the protection they get from Pickles who shows what Christianity is not, while claiming to hate atheists, and Theresa May, the Vicar's daughter who allows Butler to interfere in the National CSA inquiry to protect the church, and others, then they will be worse off. Not to mention Cameron claiming to be a Christian.

The Church are as self-interested as usual, they couldn't care less that the conservative government have killed and are killing people with a harsh and unjust benefits system. I was brought up conservative to the death, but there is no way I can uphold a party that kills people because they are not fit to work, that kind of regime belongs in the dark ages.
So I am not the slightest bit surprised that the Church of England support the conservatives and swing votes for them.

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

A succinct Statement

After several years of huge and horrendous mess in the press, complaints, legal action and cover-ups, the privately educated old boys, Sir Mark Hedley, Sir McFarlane, and unSir Carew-Huges, fail to see what all the fuss is about, ahh the benefits of private education and comfortable lives! Of course they can't see what the poor old Bishop of Winchester has done wrong!
Of course a million pounds of the church's money wasted on a whitewash and a conflicted report that breach the data protection act, cover up for wrong doing and exclude the voice of the alledged complainant while leaving her defamed and open to smears and hatred and violations of her personal life are OK by the honorable McFarlane, Hedley and Hughes-Carew! As are the Bishop of Winchester's lies and misleading of the press.
 And his failure to discipline his safeguarding director for serious misconduct and allowing her to be involved and influence a matter in which she was conflicted, had a need to cover up for herself and acted illegally while doing so.
Because how can wealthy, narrow old men do anything but close ranks and protect their own kind against a poor and vulnerable person, who they cannot, from their backgrounds, possibly understand?!

Can I have comments and feedback from the general public and human rights activists on whether or not this is a succinct statement please?

Jersey s corrupt dream team make the National press

SOJP,  Heather Steel and associated corrupt individuals.

Saturday, 18 April 2015

An open letter to Bishop Paul Butler

What Butler fails to recognize in all his loud empty noise is that while the Cofe is the playground of old freemasons with a lot of money, and closing ranks occurs, he may as well just send out open invites to paedophiles rather than wasting his noisebox on safeguarding pretences. 

Dear Bishop Butler,

Following my phone calls, I thought I would write to make sure that you understand fully how much distress you are causing by your lies about safeguarding.

While the situation remains that you are protecting and supporting my abuser, Jane Fisher to remain in safeguarding positions in the church, as well as remaining a church reader, after her misconduct, which even her whitewash cover-up, the Korris report, cannot completely cover up, and while complaints against her have been made to the police and safeguarding bodies as a result of her continuing to harass me, and while she has caused other safeguarding failures even while stitching me up, and while the Church have been notified very clearly that the Korris report was an invalid report and the Steel report is a conflicted whitewash that is leaving me in fear of my life but no redaction or apology has been made, you need to stop lying to the press and media about the Church of England's commitment to safeguarding, and actually take action regarding the Diocese of Winchester. You need to stop misusing the word 'independent' and you need to ensure an independent report by non-conflicted people who have no connection to the Church of England, a report that includes me this time, unlike your other whitewashes that are not credible as they have not been independent and have omitted me and vilified me to the general public and been illegal and a breach of the data protection act.

The church have had me branded, imprisoned, destroyed, left homeless, and their answer to all that was to publicly vilify me internationally in the press as a PR stunt, with no thought for my welfare and safety whatsoever. So I think your crowing and strutting in the press should stop now, until you have apologized, redacted the defamation of me, and recompensed me, although no recompense in the world will take away what you have done to me.

Can you explain how you consider that things have changed in the church when there has been no true investigation into what happened to me, but a huge amount of PR showing off,  lies and slander and defamation and illegal activities with regards confidential information and breaches of the data protection act.
Can you explain what has changed in safeguarding when in 2013 I was destroyed by the lies and whitewashes launched into the press and there has as yet been no apology and no redaction, and instead I am living in fear of the report engineered by the Jersey Deanery?

Can you explain why, if you and the church are committed to safeguarding, why Bishop Dakin and Jane Fisher. the perpatrators of this massive attack on a vulnerable adult, nearly killing her, and putting her in danger of attacks with no defence due to the police record and slander of her, are still in their positions? don't you think you should take time out from lying in the press in order to deal with this?
Do you think leaving someone branded, shamed, ruined and broken and waiting to be killed by another round of defamation and lies in the press and internationally is good safeguarding? If that is your understanding of safeguarding then it is time for you to resign./
treat me as a human being, and you and your colleagues act as if I simply 'deserve this ongoing destroyal, then you shouldn't be in your job.
It is time that a major outside investigation got past your lies and flannel and misleading of the public and press and shone a light onto the rotten old Church of England system of duplicity and cover up.

I would like to know how, if Jane Fisher had been successful in killing me as she nearly did, the Church’s so-called safeguarding reports years later would have made any difference, with me dead and totally out of the picture, as opposed to how things are now,m me alive but destroyed and still challenging this evil of being left defamed and destroyed while my abusers remain in church positions, protected and upheld by the church, and in the case of one of them, still accessing vulnerable individuals from Jersey’s town church, where he is upheld and supported by the same group of States-judiciary-church-lawyers who ensured that the Dean of Jersey was cleared.
Can you explain why you and the other Church officers and Bishops have not responded to me in any way or form about the whole situation of the way the church have repeatedly and lastingly destroyed me, gone on harassing me and vilifying me and giving their blessing to those who also harass me, for example, you taking part in a church times article that vilified me and very deliberately upheld my abuser?
And worse.

Until you have answers and until you stop treating me as if ‘I deserve to wait to be destroyed by a conflicted whitewash’ because ‘from what you have heard’ from people who vilify me to cover up for themselves, then you have absolutely no understanding of what abuse victims go through and absolutely no right to talk about safeguarding, because in upholding Fisher, Dakin, Key and others, you completely invalidate your position and the words you speak.

Please stop spitting on Jesus by your nonsense in the press and refusal to safeguard me or deal with the Diocese of Winchester’s harassment of me.

The Church’s continued silence on this matter and allowing me to continue to suffer the shock and distress of press releases that defame me and clear wrongdoers while I wait to be destroyed by the Steel whitewash is a very very serious safeguarding issue and shows your complete and utter contempt for safeguarding, integrity and an abuse survivor who you have branded and crucified just as your predecessors, the Pharisees did to Jesus. As long as this matter goes on, the Church of England has no place in society and is breaching the trade descriptions act by claiming to be a Christian church. Or don’t you bother to claim that any more, is it just known as ‘extra socials outside of the lodge?’

On the subject of Steel, are you the conflicted so-called 'safeguarding expert' viewing the Steel report? And if so, are you aware that you are conflicted by your support of Fisher and your support of the Diocese and Deanery in destroying me? And if so, as you are not independent and have not asked for my side of things and have not ensured that I am included in any reports, and thus you have profoundly failed in safeguarding, isn't it time you shredded the whitewash reports and resigned? Also, you need to declare, if you are in any way involved, that you were Bishop of Southampton, and knew the Montagues and I met you with them, that day when Juliet got Fred to drive me to SOuthampton? If you are involved in Safeguarding then you will be aware that the hundreds upon hundreds of omissions and distortions invalidate the reports by the Diocese of WInchester and are very very bad safeguarding to say the least!

Please read the series of letters after my signature, and if you do not like clicking on links, then go to and go to the ‘Philosophy’ section and you will find the letters there, hopefully including this one.



Wednesday, 15 April 2015

Second Letter of Questions for the Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury

Dear Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury,

As yet I have not had a reply to the first letter of questions, which I sent directly to you, but that is pretty typical. You have made me an object to scapegoat, and in Church of England style, you have failed to realise that I am a real human being with feelings and a life. I gather that if there is no money and no status, the Church cannot view a person as a human being.

Let's launch into the questions. Which of course are exhaustive and so I am doing these letters at the same time as music theory revision. This matter is of a major scale in my life.

1. Can you explain the conflict of interests where Dame Steel represented the Jersey Deanery against you for your misconduct? If she was supposed to be investigating FOR you, how could she investigate YOU on behalf of the people she was supposed to be investigating? See this link:

1a) Can you also state your knowledge that your advert for witnesses would bring forward those hand picked by the Bailhache-Willing-Birt_Falle Town Church-States-Judiciary-Lawyer-Freemason clique, and that genuine witnesses to my side of things would be warned off or feel intimidated, as evidenced on the comments on Bob Hill's blog?
 Considering the Jersey dynamics, for example my abuser having relatives in all areas of the island, some, such as his brother, with very poweful influence, and the friends of the abuser's family, the friends of the Dean, friends of those in the clique mentioned above, many throughout the island, would far far outweigh those few who knew me or knew things were wrong, and those who did or do, have not been brave enough to speak up, so do you think you got a valid and impartial witness circle?
No, because even when I was at St. Andrews Church, being abused, the Churchwarden manipulated the situation to isolate me from others, and to tell them that my distress at being regressed and abused was my disability and not him harming me. So, who do you think the matter would go in favour of???
And what provision did you make for that glaring inbalance?

2. Can you explain why, for this advert, Dame Steel was using a Church of England email address? Which was actually how I contacted her, the fact being that despite her supposedly investigating my case, she had not contacted me, and presumably had no intention of doing so! And when I contacted her to ask her to withdraw as she was conflicted, she didn't withdraw, neither did you withdraw her. Have you explained that in full to people you are excusing yourself to? And have you explained the fact that Steel caused me traumatic stress by contacting the advocate who failed me in Jersey and enabled Bob Key, Jane Fisher and Michael Scott-Joynt to destroy me?

3. Have you explained how Steel was demanding paperwork from my advocate that she didn't need, such as paperwork relating to my deportation and a letter from a friend who the Diocese have since estranged me from (during the time Jane Fisher openly estranged me from all my friends in the Winchester churches in order to cover up for herself and the Bishop). Why did Steel demand that paperwork when she was not even following Korris's reccomendations regarding investigating my imprisonment and deportation?

4. The Bishop, having launched this matter rather thinly concealed as a 'safeguarding investigation into the National Press, took what action about:

a) blatantly untrue material published in the JEP by Teri Bond, a close friend of the Dean's wife, and Philip Bailhache, a Church officer, who sat on the synods with my abusers?

b) blatantly untrue information broadcast on BBC Jersey by Philip Bailhache, Bruce Willing, and Reverend Gavin Ashenden, none of whom had met me or heard my story, and none of whom had any experience of abuse, trauma or vulnerability, and who didn't care, their only interests were in vilifying and discrediting me and upholding the Dean and my abuser?

c) Took what action about sites and media such as 'Clerical Whispers' 'Thinking Anglicans' (The great oxymoron), Premier Christian Radio, Huffington Post, and other sites, defaming me and publishing distressing and misleading comments about me by total strangers who were mislead by the Korris rubbish?

d) About Philip Bailhache abusing his dual roles in Church and States to write a defamatory and misleading 'Open Letter about me, circulating it to citizens of Jersey who didn't know me and were influenced by Philip Bailhache's status in the States, Judiciary and Church, to support Philip Bailhache and the Dean against me?
Further reading of Philip Bailhache's ongoing misconduct on the same theme:

e) On the Same subject, the breaches of the data protection act regarding my case, when Philip Bailhache was flying to and from influencing the Archbishop of Canterbury against me and making him reinstate the Dean?

Further Reading:

5. Why was the Korris report released to the police as fact, without my side of things, and without my consent?

6. Why were 'Further meetings' promised by Gladwin and Daly, at a token meeting that they had with Bob Hill and Myself, and those meetings never occured? Cover-up and excusing cover up?
Church of England broken promises and misleading people? Failure to represent both sides of things.

7. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain the comment about 'called to help the lost, last and least' in his misleading statement to the press in November 2013? In the context of if not being a Biblical reference, and the Bible saying that 'The First Shall be Last and the Last shall be First' ie, fat old men in palaces, who crush the poor and vulnerable, are not going to get into heaven, but those crucified on earth by those fat old men may just get into heaven?! The 'Lost, last and least' statement was ultimate arrogance and is the brand and stamp of the Church of England. And I want an apology for that statement.

8. Regarding Dame Steel's terms of reference, one of the terms is that she can have anyone to assist her. Did you write that term or did she? And are you aware that it allows her to invite 'anyone' including Philip Bailhache, Gavin Ashenden, Ian LeMarquand and anyone else with an interest in protecting the Dean and themselves and other wrongdoers, to assist her, which is what has happened, thus the investigation is invalid.

a) In the context of you claiming in November 2013, that the Steel report could not be published due to a legal bid, would you explain who could have seen the report and made a legal bid?

b)And why I have not seen the report, when it is a conflicted investigation against me?

c)So, who has seen the report when I have not? Why was part of the report's appendix apparently leaked?

d)And how would Philip Bailhache know the cost of the report?

Why if other parties investigated have seen the report in order to make a legal bid, have I not seen it?

f)And how accurate or misleading have the amendments to the report since the legal bid made the report?

g) Seeing as you were about to release it again when I took you to court?

h) Also, if someone else was allowed to view the report and on the grounds of what they read, allowed to make a legal bid to stop the release of the report, considering that it was supposed to be about safeguarding and about me, why was I not allowed to do the same?

i) especially as you have been asked to provide me a copy of this conflicted whitewash report and have not done so!

10. The Bishop of Winchester claims to take safeguarding very seriously, why then has he destroyed me publicly and left me under threat of destroyal for two years, while allowing all wrongdoers in the Jersey Deanery to triumph openly and in the press, while leaving me at risk of my life and receiving hate and threats and defamation?

11. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain exactly how the defamation, threat and misleading of the general public while letting wrongdoers off is condusive to safeguarding?

12. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain why there has been no investigation or action into Jane Fisher's misconduct and instead she has been given time and freedom to ensure cover-up and closed ranks? Can he further explain why, after receiving my complaint and considering that Jane Fisher is a reader as well as a safeguarding director, she has not been been disciplined by the Bishop, but instead allowed to continue to provoke me and act illegally, just as she was in Jersey and Winchester, to my detriment, when she was allowed to have me beaten and imprisoned by police for my reaction, how has anything changed regarding safeguarding, when the Church have simply done the same again as they did to me before, only on a much larger scale? And again with no appropriate action taken?
Can the Bishop also comment on how Jane Fisher has been conflicted in this whole safeguarding association, by her relationship with other wrongdoers and her need to cover up for herself, and why she has been allowed to continue to complicate matters by being involved. A prime example is her illegal liason with Jersey police in November 2013 at the same time as she illegally referred me to the NSPCC. If the Bishop is passionate about safeguarding, and suspended the Dean on that note, why has he allowed Jane Fisher to continue unrestricted? Doesn't that show bias and imbalance, to dangerous levels?

13. a) Why was the Dean cleared BEFORE the visitation was carried out? And as he was cleared publicly by the Bishop,
b) then what was the point of the visitation and why was it carried out? Why was that money wasted?
c) and why did the Bishop and Diocese not bother to communicate with me about the Dean's re-instatement, nor pass on the Dean's 'apology' which was kept on the Church of England's website as a trophy for months, presumably as part of Paul Butler's PR and spin campaign at the expense of Victims?
d)  Is that campaign over or are the Church going to continue to sicken abuse survivors, people who think, and God by continuing with it?

e) Why have I been excluded from e Church all reports when it is supposedly my complaints that the reports are about, Although in reality the reports were or are supposedly part of the CofE's failed PR stunt campaign at the expense of victims, most of whom are voiceless and the Church don't really plan ahead for those of us like me, Eli Ward or Theresa Cooper, who keep speaking up even when you call us mad, bad and all the rest of it.

14. a) Can the Bishop of Winchester explain how he will afford to destroy all other abuse victims the way he destroys me, seeing as, according to Jane Fisher, she gets hundreds of calls per  month about abuse and misconduct in the Church?
b) Can the Bishop explain how she gets hundreds of calls per month about abuse and misconduct, considering how many churches there are in the Diocese? Wouldn't the Bishop consider that there is a root fault with his Diocesan Safeguarding policy or his Safeguarding Director's competency (the latter I know is the case).
c) Can the Bishop expand on how many other cases he has launched into the press as a safeguarding failure in the duplicity campaign before destoying the victim in the press?
d)  Can he explain how many more will be dealt with this way? How many other's so far? Because I have not seen the Diocese publicly destroying anyone else apart from Reverend Hawthorne, where they also tried to use mental illness as an excuse for destroying this person. I have heard from several priests who, when diagnosed with conditions that classified them as vulnerable, they were destroyed by the CofE as Reverend Hawthorne was.
e) Apart from that, how many other failures by Jane Fisher have been atrociously used as PR stunts before destroying the victim publicly as in my case? How many have even been looked at, considering that most cases involving the voiceless vulnerable do not lead to the voiceless vulnerable speaking up until a review was forced, which Jane Fisher hijacked as the Korris report, and it went on from there.
See link:

a) Can the Bishop just clarify something about the Korris report? Written from Jane Fisher's notes, of course it was detrimental to me and covered up for others, but at one point it inaccurately describes what seems to be a mishmash of early abuse that I suffered at the hands of the Diocese of Winchester, but it claims that I 'first came to the Diocese's attention when I was 19 years old' presumably it is talking about my being taken in by JM and abused by FM.
b) Could the Diocese explain then, why if I came to their attention aged 19, I was taken to live at the rectory aged 20, was not removed from the rectory by the Diocese when I was being abused aged 20, but removed myself when JM's mother went mad and blamed me for being abused.

 And yet, JM set up situations AFTER I left the rectory aged 20 where FM could abuse me, and not once did the Diocese contact me, as JM blamed me for the abuse, told me I led her husband on, which fortunately my counsellor told me was an invalid excuse, and not once did the Diocese contact me, ask me for my story, or prevent abuse as my friendship with JM continued from age 19 to age 27 when the Diocese allowed the churchwarden and Dean in Jersey to take that abuse by FM and rope JM in to accuse me of being a serial accuser.

further questions: a) Why if the Diocese knew about me from age 19, did they allow JM to move me to the rectory and get housing benefit and social services money for looking after me?

b) Why did they allow her to take me to New Zealand for three weeks, and why, if I was a serial troublemaker did she take me with her accross the world for three weeks?

c) Is the Diocese aware or were they, that when she decided to take me, I was not on speaking terms with her because she blamed me for abuse, and when she spoke of New Zealand I made her come round and talk about FM abusing me, and try to get her to stop blaming me, and she didn't stop blaming me?
d) And so the New Zealand trip was a disaster, and I went because she had said she would pay in full for me and I was hardly earning enough money for food at the time? I was not using her but decided, or hoped, that her suggestion that an all expenses paid trip would be good for me was right.
e) Can the Diocese explain why, if they became aware of me when I was 19, they allowed JM to breach her counselling boundaries and take me home as a replacement for her step-daughter, and then, even up to my time in Jersey, she would have me to stay over at the Rectory, as a friend?
f) Can the Diocese explain why, if they were aware of me, they allowed JM to breach Church of England safeguarding policy and professional boundaries, resulting in the damage that FM's temper and abuse did to me psychologically as well as JM unethical approach to things,, and then allow JM to join forces with the Dean and the churchwarden to harm me?
g) Why the fact that her husband's abuse of me came out in the open in Jersey as a result of the abuse there and the churchwarden knowing about he husband's abuse because he made me talk about abuse, and thus using it to reel JM in to support his case?
h) and what about Jane Fisher actually backing up this defamation of me, and allowing the Lihous to be added to it via Phil Warren, their son in law, clerk to the Jersey Deanery, so that the Dean and churchwarden could make me out to be a serial troublemaker and Jane Fisher aiding this and furthering it to Lou Scott-Joynt and the Deanery of Jersey?
i) why is there no accurate record and Jane Fisher refused to investigate and blamed me and got Tracy LeCoutuer, my former friend who Jane Fisher estranged me from to blame me, for that evening when Lou Scott-Joynt made it clear that the Dean was not going to be dealt with and I was considered to blame, why there is no accurate record of the Dean calling me a liar about the abuse and calling me a serial troublemaker and citing JM and FM and the Lihous as grounds for that, and then lying to the police and court that I came to his house shouting and swearing when I didn't? Why did Jane Fisher refuse to engage with that situation in any way and try to blame me, it makes a mockery of the supposed investigation into the Dean when Fisher was aiding and abetting his actions at all times.

j) Where is the explanation of the Diocese knowing I was vulnerable and being abused since age 19 and nothing being done about it? No investigation, no protection of me?
Because the Korris report claims it is fact that the Diocese knew about me, knew there was abuse, and there is a claim about me abusing people's good nature but no explanation of anything being done by the Diocese or my side of things, and yet this report was released to the police and general public as fact, without the points I have made here, which are just a very small selection of points indeed.

Reading the above paragraph, can you imagine the damage this all did to me and as the description is only the tip of the iceberg, can you imagine how damaged I was when I arrived in Jersey, having been sexually and emotionally abused in the Church of England from the age of 19, and previously abused in every way up to the age of 17? Leaving me admittedly volatile but also open to abuse and to blame as a result of my psychological state.
And can you see how the closed ranks and internal wrongdoing and covering up for each other in the church is not condusive to safeguarding, especially when the Diocesan safeguarding officer is in the thick of it and cannot safeguard against bad practice that she approves of, upholds and takes part in?

15. a) When the Bishop of Winchester finally releases his rather worthless million pound report, will he announce the conflicts of interest? Those names in the previous letter and the full range of those not mentioned?
b) Will he also announce the illegal actions and data protection breaches that produced the report, will he announce why I am not included either in the Steel report or the Korris report when they are supposedly about my case? The real reasons, not the made up ones.
The real reasons being that although the Bishop illegally and harmfully had me traced by police after publishing the Korris report, he did not have me contacted to include me in it and had no intention of doing so, and having had me traced, he then didn't interview me or include my amendments, even though they were sent to him, those that I did before that dreadful unprofessional report made me too ill.
As for the Steel report, Steel was conflicted, and I asked her to withdraw, sparking lies from media and press who should have known better, such as 'Premier Christian Radio' and the Church (Times) Rag.
Steel made it very clear who's side she was on and tried to lie to Bob Hill about her connection with Bailhache, Birt and others.
So, as yet, over two years later, the Bishop has wasted estimated over a million pounds on whitewash cover-ups, when is he going to do an investigation and report into my complaints?

16. Back to Korris claiming that the Jersey Deanery denied shunning me, well, considering that they had been told by the Dean not to co-operate with the report, and considering that no-one in their right mind would actually admit to wrongdoing for a report like that, why was Korris simply allowed to coninue Jane Fisher's spiel about me being paranoid? How is it safeguarding to repeat, magnify and publicise lies about me and deny my experiences?

17. Did Bishop Dakin's grandchildren write the Steel report terms of reference for fun? What does the rigmarole and nonsense about publishing and redacting even mean?

18. Does the Bishop of Winchester understand that due to the lack of independence and professionalism of the safeguarding investigations and the failure to include the person the reports were supposedly about, and the Church's obvious lack of understanding of what independent means, and due to the huge amount of money wasted on this matter, the Diocese of Winchester needs to be audited and investigated from outside of the Church of England, otherwise they have no credibility whatsoever. The Bishop also needs to arrange an independent investigation into my complaints.

19. Does the Bishop of Winchester want to explain why he 'tried to arrange help for me' in order to do a press release;
 when he had been made aware by me for months before the press release, that he was disrupting my therapy and support and making both impossible, and yet he allowed Jane Fisher, who was under a formal complaint, to illegally refer me to an agency not qualified to help me, the NSPCC, without my consent, and cause me massive shock and disruption.
Just so the Bishop could try to close the mattter down and mislead the general public through the press to make them think he had done his job.
Can the Bishop please explain why he did this in full knowledge of what he was doing?
Can he explain why he has not apologized for doing these things? And can he explain his understanding of the damage to me that the collective events of November 2013 did, and how he potentially put my life in danger by destroying me as he did at that time, see link:

20. Can the Bishop explain how any safeguarding benefits have come out of this messed up farce, that is unrepeatable due to cost anyway, and which has shown at every stage that the Church have no understanding or concern for safeguarding, vulnerability or the safety or welfare or inclusion of vulnerable groups.
 Reference back to my last letter of questions, what has the Bishop done about criminally ignorant attitudes and views of his clergy and church officers in Jersey such as Gavin Ashenden, Bruce Willings and Philip Bailhache?
And at what point has the Bishop answered the press smear campaign by explaining that Philip Bailhache is conflicted by dual States and Church roles and has asscoiation with my abusers? And on the subject, when has he enlightened the general public through the press, as to who is who in this matter, including Bishop Willmott's conflicts of interest? Because all I have heard is the Bishop either glorifying or justifying his or the Diocese's actions, and the same with the Archbishop.

21. Does the Bishop understand that a court of law or an outside investigation needs to ask these questions that I have asked, and more, and my questions are exhaustive?

22. Would the Bishop like to explain the biased media reporting? Is that a paid-for thing? Is it included in the inquiry costs? Does the Bishop know of the conflicts of interests in the press, for example the Jersey Evening Post is overseen by my abuser's brother, and the libel and defamation unchecked in the JEP is noticable and has been recorded, and there are more conflicts of interest there that I am not yet naming?

23. Do the Dioceses understand that vilifying someone without allowing them a voice to defend themselves is illegal and nothing to do with safeguarding?

24. Can the Bishop explain why he illegally had me traced and then threatened me and caused me a collapse? Threatened me for contacting him about the very issues I now write down in these letters?! Did the Bishop of Winchester threaten his church officers, Philip Bailhache, Bruce Willings and others? Did he threaten Gavin Ashenden or the Dean? Well, yes he threatened the Dean, in the leaked letter from the Steel report, he told the Dean to break Jersey law in order to obey the Bishop. No wonder the Birt-Bailhache-Falle clique of the Town Church, States and Judiciary were furious when one of their own, Dame Steel recorded that!

25. Could it be, in light of question 24.  that the 'Legal bid over the Steel report' on November 2013, was thus the Bishop trying to save his own skin?

26. What investigatory action did the Bishop take in light of Bob Hill and my and other people's concerns about Dame Steel being conflicted, and where is the paperwork and report on this? And can the Bishop of Winchester please send this to me and Bob?

27. Considering that the Steel and other reports were supposed to be to construe good safeguarding, why am I having to live in fear and in hiding, publicly destroyed for no apparent reason and still being harmed by press releases? While nothing has been done about safeguarding in the Jersey churches, as is obvious from Ashenden and Bailhache's continued behaviours?

28. Can the Bishop talk about his lies to a court of law in context of Christianity?

29. Can the Bishop explain how giving the Deanery of Jersey centre stage and encouragement to behave in an unChristian manner has affected the Church and attendence, faith in the Church and inclusion or encouragement of vulnerable people to attend the Church? Examples including, blatant lies in the press, such as Bruce Willing claiming I was making complaints to get compensation, Philip Bailhache untruthfully claiming I had made previous complaints, two in Winchester and one in Guernsey, proven unfounded of course!
And currently Bailhache continuing to attack other abuse victims despite his church status, while Ashenden is using his JEP column to harm vulnerable and ethnic groups, and has used the Church Times to mislead people and defame me, for example trying to discredit me on grounds of mental illness, failing to mention to a largely ignorant and middle class clergy readership, that mentally ill people are not automatically liars and are the most vulnerable to abuse.
Also, someone needs to instruct Bruce Willings that terminology such as 'That poor unfortunate woman' used in a condescending tone, may have been appropriate for several hundred years ago, but not for the present day and age. See link:

30. In light of Question 29, what is the Bishop doing to educate these clergy and church officers both on vulnerability and safeguarding and also on how wrong their behaviour is. In the context that the Bishop and his safeguarding officer and Diocese's behaviour is no better because they are no less ignorant. Who is going to deal with this safeguarding failure through ignorance? And when is the Bishop going to bring this damaging public behaviour by his clergy and church officers to an end?

31 Which does the Bishop consider worse, well-off men who have never experienced abuse or protect abusers, abusing their power while calling themselves Christians, to destroy a lone vulnerable female?
 Or a female with autism, learning difficulties and profound trauma, who has been regressed by her abuser, to childhood when her first childhood was profoundly damaging, going mad with distress when she is dumped by her abuser, left still regressed, after being told by her abuser's wife thoughout the time she had known them, that she was of a lower class and thus not welcome and shameful, then reporting the abuse, and seeing her abuser get off laughing and slandering her through the closed island church community, while she is beaten by police and flung in a cell for reporting someone well conected, and then after years of abusive childhood and damage by the elitist abusive church of England, she goes mad.

Which is worse? Well, according to the Bishop and Diocese of Winchester, the second one is worst, which is why they have had me beaten, branded and ruined for life with a criminal record, whitewashed investigtions, enforced the branding of me, and left my abuser and his wife central to the town church and still taking visiting women home in positions of trust.

It makes all this noise about safeguarding and caring for the vulnerable worthless. So the CofE should sack spin doctor and PR stuntman Paul Butler, (a colleague of Jane Fisher from his time as Bishop of SOuthampton) and instead employ someone who will deal with safeguarding. Only the Church will never dare to do that, the liability they would have to take if they suddenly became honest, would financially ruin the church, which is what all this spin and flannel in the press is really about, and the toadying of the National CSA Inquiry, it is all to prevent that liability and make the church look squeaky clean.

At my expense, in Jersey.

As yet, the Bishop has failed to answer these questions in these letters, and in 2013 he acknowledged an email of questions, but never answered them, he has not produced a press release or statement as he usually does in response to the Jersey Deanery's questions. Again he considers his image in Jersey and the Diocese and Press and world more important than answering the human being he has ruthlessly destroyed, failing while he has done so, to comprehend any of Jesus teachings and thus invalidating the Diocese and Church as Christian organizations.

As you will see, these letters ask questions and highlight the ways in which the reports and investigations are invalid, they do not tell my story, because as yet, the Diocese of Winchester, the Diocese of Canterbury, the Deanery of Jersey and the Church of England and the press, have showed no interest in my side of things, so this is not the time or the place.

The Bishop can only publish his report if the full details of conflicts of interest, dishonesty and illegal activity used to make up the report are published with it. This is not permission to publish the report, as it is a deliberate safeguarding failure and conflict of interests.
The Bishop does not and will never have, permission to publish the Steel report, as he knowingly allowed not a safeguarding report, but a character assassination, with a bit of safeguarding thrown in for credibility and to earn the undoubtedly big fee offered to Dame Steel.



Sunday, 12 April 2015

The general election

The general election increasingly reminds me of something.

Fat old men making empty and duplicious speeches, arguing in the spotlight, trying to outdo each other?

The Diocese of Winchester and Deanery of Jersey war! :)

Ah, maybe the Diocese and Deanery were having a general election!

Thursday, 9 April 2015

Here are some posts that the Diocese would never look at...

Because these highlight how the people they allied with to destroy me, the Police, and Bailhache, are and remain, dishonest and in the wrong:

And here is Philip Bailhache, who the church keep very quiet about, because he has been a Church officer and sitting on the synods alongside my abuser in Jersey and my other abuser formerly of Winchester, for so long. He got the Dean reinstated through vilifying me, that was what his plane rides where he breached the data protection act, were all about. Time to start joining the dots:

Sunday, 5 April 2015

A letter of Questions

Dear Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury,

This is a letter of questions.
Some of Which I have already asked you but have decided to share with the general public.
The list of questions is exhaustive, because what the Church of England have done in their crazy showing off has brought up many many questions, and as you continue to subject me to harm and damage to my life, I am answering with questions.

1. Diocese of Winchester, Don't you think it was ultimate abuse of power that you liased with the police to destroy me for continuing to fight both your refusal to deal with my complaints and your illegal violations of my life, and then you used the same police to have me illegally traced so that you could go on destroying me?

2. Can you explain why, if your reports were about safeguarding, why you allowed Gavin Ashendent to be interviewed for the Steel report when he has never met me, was not in Jersey when I was there and was abusing his power as a former lawyer and chaplain to the Queen in order to protect the Dean, and has gone on to cause serious safeuarding issues in Jersey and the Diocese of Normandy?
What is being done about the safeguarding issues that Ashenden is causing in Jersey? Examples of which are commented on here:

3. This is one of your clergy, who you are permitting to use the press to spread terrible propaganda against vulnerable people and Islam. Can you explain why?

4. What is being done about Ashenden's behaviour, including his slander of me in the press and media, which is also a safeguarding issue? Can you explain why the Diocese of CAnterbury and the Diocese of Winchester are allowing Ashenden to run a column in the JEP that is furthering his damaging views and harm to vulnerable groups?

5. Unrelated. According to Bob Hill, the Diocese have agreed to pay for my accommodation for the rest of my life. That was in 2013. It is now 2015. Would the Diocese like to make the arrangement to backdate the money to 2013 and start paying me?

6. Could the Diocese of Winchester please explain why, if there was nothing wrong with the Steel report so that they were prepared to release it in 2013 and again in 2014, why it has been 'being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts' for a year now. With legal fees starting at £300 per hour, and safeguard expert fees probably not much lower, how much has a year of these experts cost? Who is paying, and why, if the report has twice been prepared for release, has it needed a year of 'being looked at'?

7. Can the Diocese then confirm that what they intend to release in the end is not the full whack of what Steel, Bailhache, Key, Ashenden, Birt, LeMarquand, LeFeuvre and other powerful and conflicted interrelated people engineered to cover up for the Dean and my abuser at my expense? Can the Diocese explain what worth a report hijacked by the defendants and amended is worth to the general public, transparency and safeguarding, especially considering how much it has cost?
How much, including the year of having the Steel report looked at by experts has this un-safeguarding report cost? And who are these experts? And why have these experts been given a report that excludes the person it is about and their views? Why after a year if these are genuine experts, haven't they spoken out about this being one sided?

8. A question was asked in the States of Jersey recently: Why is the Dean on Sabattical (again) and who is paying for it? I would like to ask the above question and also add, why was he apparently sent on Sabbattical by the Luitenant-Governor of Jersey? And why did he and the Deanery make a concerted effort to get the Steel report released before his sabbattical?

9. Can the Church please explain which authority they have referred the complaint about Sir Philip Bailhache's abuse of power and breaches of the data protection act while holding documents he was not entitled to, and when the results of that investigation will be available and where to get a copy?

10. On the same theme of investigation, who is investigating the smear campaign and lies about me in Jersey's local press and media by the Jersey Deanery, and the wider attacks on me as a result of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of CAnterbury's launch of my case and the Korris report into the National Press. Who is carrying out this report and when will I be interviewed?

11. Remaining on the subject of reports and investigations. The Diocese of Winchester made a lot of noise about safeguarding and transparency and independent report, but as yet, no independent report that includes me has been arranged, unless it has been arranged without announcement, and as yet, I have not been contacted for interview. As all are aware, the Bishop has instigated investigations into Jane Fisher and the Deanery of Jersey's complaints against me, in the form of the Korris and Steel reports, but has not instigated any investigation into my complaints against the Jersey Deanery and Jane Fisher. Therefore this is an entirely unfair situation. When is the Bishop of Winchester or the Bishop of Dover going to arrange for a report into my complaints?

12. Can the Bishop explain exactly why he has effectively done a public, illegal and unjust investigation into me, and called it a safeguarding report? Can the Bishop explain how paradoxically destroying me while claiming it is in the interests of safeguarding makes sense? Can the Bishop explain why he has given a voice to my destroyers and unpheld them?

13 Can the Bishop explain why he had me illegally traced by the police on the claim that the diocese 'wanted to help me' after they had destroyed me, and he then went ahead in upholding the way the diocese had destroyed me, by threatening me, with the police and record that I would not have got if his clergy and safeguarding officer had not been doing wrong in the first place?

14. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain why, when he claims to consider Safeguarding is very important, why he has not dealt with Jane Fisher, his safeguarding director who has committed serious misconduct, and, as she is also a Reader in the Diocese of Winchester, why he has personally not dealt with complaints against her and left her to openly harass me, in the case of her illegally referring me to the NSPCC, illegally liasing about me, and her jeer of adding me on twitter last year, showing off that neither diocese nor police had dealt with he rmisconduct? And can the Bishop also explain how, as Jane Fisher is a reader, he has dealt with her conflict of interests in the 'Safeguarding complaint' as she is a reader alongside other readers in the Jersey Deanery, such as Ian LeMarquand and Neville Brookes and others who are close to my abuser? And can the Bishop explain why the formal complaints against Jane Fisher have not been dealt with and why after the complaints were made, she was allowed to continue to be involved in the Jersey Safeguarding matter? And why she refused to deal with the case of another vulnerable adult mistreated by the Church in Jersey, when she was in Jersey to illegally liase with the police over my case?

15. When is the Diocese of WInchester going to announce the conflicts of interest and coercions and abuses of power that rendered their 'visitation' and investigations in Jersey worthless? This includes connections between the Jersey Deanery and: Judiciary, Police, Masonic agreements, lawyers, advocates others involved in law, press and media workers, relatives and friends of the Dean, my abusers and the others listed here, other people not listed here. Unless the Diocese is quite open and blatant about these conflicts then they are neither being transparent nor honest, and if the Diocese do know these conflicts, then that again invalidates their 'investigations'.

16. What are the Diocese of Canterbury doing about the Jersey situation? Not a lot if Ashenden is anything to go by.

17. Did the Diocese of Winchester undertake this open public attack on me without foresight or was it deliberate? If the Bishop felt that he had the evidence on which to suspend the Dean, why did he then clear him before the Steel report was carried out, and thus defame me by anulling what had happened to me, and giving the press opportunity to attack me as discredited, why, if the Bishop re-instated the Dean, did he then proceed with the Steel report, having gone from suddenly suspending the Dean to suddenly clearing him? How did the evidence change from publicly suspending the Dean in the NAtional press, to clearing him? And why did the Steel report then occur when the Bishop had annulled his own actions, and why then has the Bishop not apologized to the Dean?

18. Why if the Dean was cleared, did he 'apologize' to no-one? Why did the feeble 'apology' never get sent to me by the Diocese? And why, when it was never sent to me, was it used as a 'trophy' on the Church website, after the Bishop cleared the Dean without even interviewing me?

19. Why, if the Korris report was inaccurate and thus you have cleared the Dean, have you not publicly annulled the Korris report and instead allowed me to continue being shamed and defamed by it? For example, in the Church (Times) Rag? Incidentally, why have you also allowed your clergy to libel and defame me in the same paper, where hundreds of clergy read their side of things and without my views added, one side of things gets heard and believed, and the same with the rest of the press slander. How, with these massive irregularities, can you claim that anything you have done is to do with safeguarding, and again, since you have cleared the Dean at my expense, why have you not apologized publicly to him for suspending him and publishing the Korris report? And why have you not apologized for me for the defamation and data protection breaches that have led to hate attacks and shunning of me? How is what you have done anything to do with safeguarding?!

20. Can the Bishop explain, in the context of the public display of abuse of power and ignorance of vulnerability and the effects of abuse shown by the typically wealthy and powerful Church members in response to the 'safeguarding reports' How the Bishop and Diocese have improved safeguarding through their actions, and how the Bishop and Dioceses have countered these ignorant, bigoted and narrow attitudes and educated these people on the subjects of poverty, vulnerability, disability and abuse? Especially notable church officers such as Philip Bailhache, Ian LeMarquand, Bruce Willings and other conflicted Church members? Can the Bishops publicly describe the work they and his dioceses have done in response to the open bigoted prejudiced and nasty attacks on me and on all abuse survivors and vulnerable people as a result of the Bishops unprecedented public attack on me and the Jersey Deanery through the Korris report?

21. Can the Bishops explain what action has been taken against the Clergy and Laity in the Jersey Deanery case for their ongoing misconduct as a result of the safeguarding report? And when there is to be a safeguarding investigation into my complaints, presumably leading to further appropriate action? And why a number of people involved in misconduct were actually promoted, as seems to be a generic action by the Church of England?

The next set of questions are the ones that I sent to Jan Korris in my open letter to her:

Here are some questions that you and other people need to ask the Bishop of Winchester:
1. Why did he have me traced and violated, illegally by the same police who his safeguarding officer had me destroyed with? Why  he do that AFTER publishing the Korris report and not in order to offer me a chance to participate?

2. Why were my amendments and views not added if it was a genuine safeguarding effort? And why was the report left up, not amended, until I took the Bishop to court?

3. Why did the Bishop not release the Steel report to a court of law if it was a genuine report? Why and how was he able to wriggle out of it, and will he do so again as I continue action against him?

4. Why did the Bishop claim that the Steel report was ready for release in November 2013, and then claim that someone had made a legal bid against the report's release? How could someone have made a legal bid when no-one knew what was in the report? This claim by the Bishop led to further slurs on me, most notably Peter Ould claiming I couldn't have made the legal bid as I was not intelligent enough - Peter Ould being the Vicar who blogged about sex until recently and illegally involved himself in my case to the detriment of the church and slandered me and jeered at me openly with the church refusing to restrain him until I kept up a sustained complaint - good safeguarding?

5. So if someone made a bid against the Steel report, and the Bishop had to amend it, then the report was not going to be accurate anyway, so then the Bishop claimed to be preparing to release it, again, in May, and Bob Hill and I both took action. Why was the Bishop trying to release this report to the wrong official in Jersey though? Again, when there is an independent investigation, outside of the Church, these things need to be queried.

6. Why does the Bishop keep claiming to have 'safeguarding and legal experts looking at the report? Why does he need these people looking at the reports if it is a fair and balanced report? Why have they been looking at this report for a year and more without contacting me to include my views and amendments? Why has the Bishop not sent me a copy of the Steel report to comment on?
Who are these legal and safeguarding experts?
If they are within the Church of England then they are conflicted, if they are not within the church then they would not have waited over a year to contact me for my views or declare the report conflicted and unbalanced and inappropriate denigration of a lone vulnerable adult. The Bishop's solicitors seemed unaware of the situation when I contacted them about this, and there is no sign of an outside safeguarding panel viewing this report, because if this happened, then due to the nature of the conflicted Steel report and due to the material about the mess the Bishop has made of my case being widely available, the Bishop would already be in a lot of trouble over the Steel report.
Presumably when Luther-Pendragon tell the Bishop to say that the Steel report is being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts, they are referring to the conflicted Jane Fisher and Elizabeth Hall, and the Bishop's chaplain, who is a trained Barrister. Thus the general public are being mislead.

7. Why did the Bishop of Winchester allow conflicted Jane Fisher to illegally refer me to the NSPCC? Especially when he had said that there would be no further unsolicited intervention in my life? And when Jane Fisher had a formal complaint against her, which the Bishop, Elizabeth Hall, Paul Butler and the Church of England have still failed to deal with? How are they committed to safeguarding when they have failed to record, investigate or resolve my complaint?

8. Why am I being made to live in fear of and trying to survive, continued press attacks while the Bishop of Winchester continues to lie about the Steel report and leave me waiting to be destroyed by it? Will any amount of safeguarding experts and legal experts make it into a genuine report when the fact that they are involved, ficticiously or for real just says the Bishop only cares about his and the Diocese's legal safety, as I remain excluded?!

9. Now that you have read my questions, ask yourself, what happens to the voiceless vulnerable when the church can be this dishonest and this cruel to someone who has a certain amount of ability to write to the church in defence? what happens to the voiceless when the Church of England control what the press get to see and when the Church can subject someone to the damage they have subjected me to, and never be called to account?

This is the end of the first letter of Questions. But the Questions are exhaustive, and I am trying to live a normal life despite being under pressure from this matter, so I will leave it at that for the moment.



Further Reading:













More of Bob Hill's Blogs:




FRIDAY, 31 MAY 2013






FRIDAY, 30 MAY 2014